Advertisement

The Value of Stealth in the Game of Chess

  • Peter Smet
  • Don Gossink
  • Greg Calbert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3809)

Abstract

We have modified the rules of chess to create a game of imperfect information. By introducing hidden pieces into the game, we have been able to gauge the effect of uncertainty on playing strength. The addition of a hidden white piece led to white winning between 63%-89% of its games. The advantage gained from an invisible piece is dependent on both the type of piece that is hidden, and the search depth at which games are played. Greater search depths increase the value of hidden pieces, although diminishing returns were noted at increased depths. The advantage of a hidden piece is typically greater than the effect of an equivalent extra piece. In this sense, information superiority gained via stealth is a more powerful advantage than additional material. The results indicate that uncertainty arising from hidden pieces profoundly influences outcomes in the game of chess.

Keywords

Imperfect Information Board Position Search Depth Powerful Advantage Extra Piece 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bud, A.E., Albrecht, D.W., Nicholson, A.E., Zukerman, I.: Information-Theoretic advisors in Invisible Chess. Game Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents. In: Papers from the 2001 AAAI Symposium. Technical Report SS-01-03, pp. 6–15. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smet, P., Calbert, G., Scholz, J.B., Gossink, D., Kwok, H.-W., Webb, M.: The Effects of Material, Tempo and Search Depth on Win-Loss Ratios in Chess. In: Gedeon, T(T.) D., Fung, L.C.C. (eds.) AI 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2903, pp. 501–510. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Sonas, J.: The sonas rating formula - better than Elo (2003), http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/event/sonas/sonasrat.html
  5. 5.
    Knuth, D.E.: The Art of Computer Programming, Seminumerical algorithms, vol. 2. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1981)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clancy, T., Horner, C.: Every Man a Tiger, p. 361. Berkley Books, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thompson, K.: Computer Chess Strength. In: Clarke, M.R.B. (ed.) Advances in Computer Chess, Pergamon, pp. 55–56 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Smet
    • 1
  • Don Gossink
    • 1
  • Greg Calbert
    • 1
  1. 1.Command and Control DivisionDefence Science Technology Organisation (DSTO)EdinburghAustralia

Personalised recommendations